room_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool 'refreshes local cache metadata but does not change the room's shared state,' which is valuable transparency. It doesn't cover every potential behavioral nuance, but for a simple read-style tool, this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance and a behavioral note. It is front-loaded and concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, when to use it, and its side-effect profile. There is no need for additional detail about parameters or return values, as the output schema handles structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed and focuses on the tool's behavior, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('connection, membership, and local retry-queue details') for the active room. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like room_list (listing rooms) and room_join (joining a room).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before sending messages, leaving, or replacing a connection with room_join.' It clearly indicates when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools directly beyond referencing room_join, so it falls short of a perfect score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.